Robert Mugabe gets an honorary
professorship for diplomacy - and a host of role models to choose
from

John SutherlandMonday August 1, 2005The Guardian

The
last couple of weeks have been very bad for my profession (professoring,
that is). First Professor Albus Dumbledore had something very unpleasant
happen to him at the end of HP6 that can't be mentioned until everyone has
read the book.Then, last Wednesday, as the Guardian reported, "China
conferred an honorary professorship on Robert Mugabe from its Foreign
Affairs University." The appointment was "in recognition of his excellency's
outstanding research and remarkable contribution in the work of diplomacy
and international relations". Given his excellency's recent efforts with the
bulldozer, a chair in urban planning might have been appropriate. But
Zimbabwe's president is a man of many scholarly parts.

Outstanding
research must be rewarded, but Mugabe's title is unusual. One is familiar
with emeritus professors (ie dead but won't lie down); adjunct professors
(don't give up the other job, this one won't last); titular professors (call
yourself professor, but don't expect more money); endowed professors
(particularly piquant when named after someone like Murdoch, Archer or, in
my case, Lord Northcliffe).

America, true to the egalitarian zeal of its
founding fathers, appoints everyone in the business a professor, with
assistant and associate professors at the bottom, one up from latrine
cleaners. At the top are "off scale" (ie fat cat) professors - one notch
down from God.

Honorary doctors are 10 a penny - everybody from Ken Dodd
to Jeremy Clarkson can lay claim to that devalued distinction. What galactic
campus, I wonder, awarded Dr Who his honorary degree?

Mugabe was
awarded an honorary doctorate in laws from Michigan State University in
1990, which is presumably why he feels free to doctor the Zimbabwean legal
system as he sees fit. Perhaps the MSU legal faculty perceives that he's
done outstanding research in its discipline as well. There have been demands
from the student body that he be un-doctored (see www.mugabe.org). But the MSU administration
seems disinclined to take action. President for life, doctor for life,
professor for life. Universities, like tyrannies, never make
mistakes.

Honorary professors are, I think, rare verging on unique - the
unicorn of the academic menagerie. Very appropriate in this case. It is
true, of course, that the online "notMensa" cheekily awards what it is
pleased to call honorary professorships in return for theses submitted on
topics such as flatulencology (check out www.mockery.org). But no one would seriously
argue that farting ranks with remarkable contributions to diplomacy (or law)
as practised by his excellency Professor Robert Mugabe
LLD.

Flattering as it is, the title "honorary professor" for someone from
Mugabe's part of the world may carry uncomfortable overtones. The apartheid
South African state had a racial category called "honorary whites". It was
particularly useful when dark-hued Asian business people and politicians
happened to be visiting. The English cricketer Basil d'Oliveira, alas, did
not qualify. He was blackballed.

In the administration of his new
responsibilities Professor Mugabe (honoris causa) has various role models to
choose from. In his inaugural lecture he may decide to adopt the
gobbledegook style of the late and much lamented Professor Stanley Unwin.
Something along the lines of: "In the belovely Zimbabwean land, there was a
great dictatory called Muggabee, or something like that, and all the people
had great suffery because of Toby Blur's racyist politickoing."

The
newly elevated premier is well into his 80s. The absent-minded professor
pose might suit him and cover up the debilities of age. He could study
Professor Brainard, inventor of Flubber. Dotty Professor Branestawm is
another possibility. The Mugabe hair, however, will have to be ruffled
somewhat. The rolling eyes are perfect. The heroic professorial style may
also appeal. Indiana Jones is a professor (anthropology, Harvard) as is
Robert Langdon (symbology, Harvard). It is Professor Langdon who cracks the
Da Vinci code and brings the Catholic church to its knees (so to speak).
Lots of turbulent priests in Zimbabwe. And Indiana's bullwhip has a certain
charm.

Most likely is that Mugabe will follow the noble tradition of
punitive professoring. There is, one feels, more of Snape than Dumbledore in
his makeup. One foresees a reincarnation of the flagellomaniac Professor
("Whacko!") Jimmy Edwards. Plenty of whacko on the way in the townships of
Zimbabwe, no doubt.

JOHANNESBURG - South Africa-based
Zimbabwean businessman Mutumwa Mawere is fighting in British courts to
recover his companies seized last year by President Robert Mugabe's
government.

Mawere is challenging before the British High Court a
law that allows the Zimbabwean government to expropriate companies that owe
money to the state without the consent of shareholders.

Mawere
last September lost control of SMM Holdings, a multi-billion dollar asbestos
producer in Zimbabwe, after the government seized it after accusing Mawere
of failing to remit huge amounts of foreign currency to the
state.

He is arguing that the government seizure of SMM
Holdings and African Associated Mines was illegal and wants the court to
deregister a Zimbabwe government-appointed businessman, Arafas Gwaradzimba,
as a director of a UK-based company that owns a major stake in his
Zimbabwean companies.

He is challenging the Reconstruction of
State-indebted Insolvent Companies Act and the Resolution of State-indebted
Financial Institutions Acts that were both used by the Zimbabwean government
to seize his assets.

The two laws allow debts owned to the state to
be converted into state-owned equity, disregarding the rights of
shareholders.

Mawere was last year accused of defrauding the
Zimbabwe government after he allegedly failed to remit huge sums of foreign
currency. An attempt to extradite him to Zimbabwe from South Africa to face
fraud charges failed after he successfully fought against the extradition in
the courts. - ZimOnline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zimbabwe's
government is planning to make constitutional amendments in relation to
property and land ownership. Law expert, Dr Alex Magaisa warns the move
could be the final death knell for Zimbabwe's battered
economy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------By
Dr Alex T MagaisaLast updated: 08/01/2005 14:13:20THE proposed
constitutional amendment in relation to property ownership will effectively
close one of the few remaining opportunities for economic revival in
Zimbabwe.In an age of the free market and open economy, Zimbabwe is
regressing by adopting frightening characteristics of the discredited closed
economy. In this article, we assess the basis of this landmark change and
the effect it is likely to have on the economic fortunes of the country.
Clause 16B of the Constitutional Amendment (No. 17) Bill is one that any
self-respecting parliament should never permit if the legislative body
privileges the economic interests of the country. It is an assault not only
on fundamental freedoms but also on the economy of the country. Contrary to
the beliefs of its proponents, the nationalisation of land is based on a
fallacious understanding of the nature of African society and is quite
simply, poor economic policy.

It is necessary to give a simplified
summary of the key legal and practical effect of Clause 16B of the
Constitutional Bill. First, it effectively enables the nationalisation of
all agricultural land and gives power to the state to compulsorily acquire
land "for whatever purpose". There is therefore no limit to the purpose for
which land may be acquired by the state and presumably it may even be taken
for private interests. This is vague and exposes the process to abuse.
Secondly, it prohibits any claims for compensation for acquired land except
in respect of improvements. Third, it ousts the jurisdiction of the courts
in respect of challenges against compulsory acquisition and only permits
challenges against the valuation of improvements. These are highly dangerous
clauses, encroaching as they do, on one of the fundamental rights, which
play a key role in the economic situation of any country.

The
rationale for nationalising agricultural land has not been clearly defined
but it is clearly a retrogressive step. One question that arises is whether
or not at a conceptual level the institution of private ownership is alien
to African societies as there is a view that seems to suggest that
traditional African society is inherently communal. At the heart of the
problem in contemporary Africa is the apparent conflict between the
so-called traditional (African) and modern (Western) values. It is often
suggested that while traditional society values communal ownership, Western
society privileges individualism and private ownership. At the national
level, this value of communal ownership is expressed in the form of
nationalisation with the state purportedly acting as the guardian of people
and custodian of property for the people. It is often argued that there is
no place for individualism in African society, and because communal
ownership is purportedly for the good of all members of society, we must
make it the foundation of our relationship with property. This is not only
wrong but it is at variance with the realities of modern African
societies.

Opponents of private ownership conveniently forget that the
so-called traditional African society is not static. Likewise, the values of
that society are not fixed in time but are dynamic and change in form and
character in response to changes in society. From that perspective, it is
clear that African society is not what it was in the 19th century and
similarly its values have changed. The values of individualism and private
ownership have been embraced by both rural and urban Zimbabweans and
co-exist with the remaining aspects communalism that may still be the basis
of relations between people. The acquisition and protection of ownership of
things are some of the key characteristics of Zimbabwean society today. Both
movable and immovable assets are the subjects of Zimbabweans' desire to own
and protect in individual capacities. When the state justifies
nationalisation with reference to traditional values, it is taking society
to an age that many can hardly relate to. Whatever our denials we, including
the leaders have embraced the so-called western value of private ownership.
By this constitutional amendment, the sate is simply imposing a system that
is discredited, alien and at variance with modern society's
values.

Given the fashionable reference to all things Chinese as the
alternative, it is perhaps ironic that Zimbabwe is going in the opposite
direction compared to our Eastern friends. In 2004, the Chinese parliament
endorsed landmark changes to the Constitution to enable, for the first time
since the 1949 Revolution, to protect the right to private property. This
represented the decline of a key tenet of communist China, which by and
large demonstrates the Chinese' calculated embrace of capitalist
characteristics, albeit with caution. The disaster that followed
nationalisation of land in Tanzania under Mwalimu Nyerere is well
documented. One could be tempted to remark that Zimbabwe is experimenting.
It is not. By this amendment, it is simply learning from others' mistakes to
make similar ones.

The Chinese and others have embraced private ownership
because empirical evidence shows that it is a necessary tool for promoting
economic development. Pressure for reform came also from the Chinese
business community, whom ironically, we are trying to attract. The ability
to own things drives the human being to be inventive and to invest labour
and capital into more production and efficiency. Ownership facilitates
freedom as it gives a person personal jurisdiction of his
property.

The state fails to realise that besides skill and experience,
the white commercial farmers were able to carry out viable business on the
farms because they had title to the land. The availability of title meant
that they were able to participate in the financial markets as commercial
businesses, thereby benefiting from the instruments designed specifically to
meet their needs. This falls away with nationalisation - effectively wiping
out the economic value of land in the markets. The amendment will
undoubtedly cause a major setback to any economic turnaround efforts. It
sends out the message that Zimbabwe is not prepared to embrace free market
economics and protect investor rights. Who would want to invest in a country
where his security of title is constantly under threat?

In all
industrialised and emerging economies, the right to private property is held
in high esteem and given ample protection. The right of the state to acquire
land is generally accepted but the state is held accountable for its actions
and laws that affect property rights. In this respect Clause 16B has serious
defects.

First, by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts it is
effectively violating the time-honoured principle of separation of powers
between parliament, the executive and the judiciary. This separation is
crucial for the purpose of maintaining checks and balances against the abuse
of power by any of the branches of government. The Judiciary acts as a
bulwark against the encroachment into the rights of citizens by the
Legislature and the Executive. This more pertinent in many African countries
in cases where the Legislature is effectively captured by the Executive that
is often too powerful. In Zimbabwe, the Constitution already confers rights
to approach the courts for redress and ousting that jurisdiction goes
against the constitutional order. Worse is that Clause 16B tries to remove
the right to the protection of the law that is protected under Section 18 of
the constitution. The amendment fundamentally disturbs the institutional
arrangements that are necessary for the protection of the right to
property.

Secondly, two of the paragraphs seek to legitimise the
acquisitions of land without compensation that have already taken place or
might take place before the clause becomes law. This is known as an ex post
facto law, that is, a law that seeks to apply to events that occurred before
its enactment. There is in most civilised states a general prohibition
against passing such laws, which are essentially retrospective. They are
unfair because they seek to take away rights to which citizens were
legitimately entitled at the relevant time. Law must be certain to all
citizens and it is unjust to place one at a disadvantage after the event has
passed. In some countries this prohibition applies only to criminal laws but
there is no reason why a similar approach should not apply to civil
laws.

In the same vein, clearly, this retrospective amendment goes
against the legitimate expectations of citizens. Under the Constitution,
they had legitimate expectations to approach the courts of law for redress
at the time of acquisition. They also had legitimate expectations to receive
fair compensation for their property. This amendment cannot now purport to
take away those legitimate expectations - it would be a clear violation of
international human rights law. The danger of allowing a change of this
character will in future open the way for the state to violate the law with
reckless abandon, only to provide a cover of legitimacy by enacting
retroactive constitutional amendments.

In conclusion, the amendments
will do more harm to the country in the long term that the framers seem to
conveniently overlook at this stage. The confidence of investors will
decline further while the credit rating of the country and businesses will
be drastically reduced. The land question is not simply a political matter
nor is land simply needed for sentimental reasons. It is a key economic
issue and sadly, this amendment is based on misdirected economic policies.
The real revolution will manifest when people who get land are given title
to it - to use it as they wish and when a person has freedom over their
property, he is more likely to put it to better use.

Not when it is at
risk of compulsory acquisition without recourse to the courts. James Madison
once stated that, "In framing a government which is to be administered by
men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to
control itself." In Zimbabwe, by ousting the judiciary as far as land is
concerned, clearly the Executive is rejecting control. Parliament must think
long and hard before passing this dangerous amendment into law for it is a
mortal danger to the economy.Dr A T Magaisa specialises in corporate &
financial services law. He can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk

By Staff
ReporterLast updated: 08/01/2005 14:46:34THE Daily News' demise could
have been an inside job, according to sensational claims by some of the
company's directors.

It has also emerged that managers at Associated
Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) -- publishers of the banned newspaper -- rowed
over the paper's non-registration which directly led to its closure, New
Zimbabwe.com can reveal.

Electronic mail exchanges between the
paper's senior managers and majority shareholder, Strive Masiyiwa, reveal
serious concerns at the decision not to register the paper in line with new
legislation passed in May 2002.

The Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (Aippa), which was passed in May 2002, gave media
organisations up to December of that year to register with a government
appointed commission.

All other papers but The Daily News and its sister
paper, The Daily News on Sunday, registered.

The decision not to
register led to internal rifts within The Daily News, and the paper's editor
Geoffrey Nyarota was unceremoniously dismissed on December 30, 2002, after
he openly expressed disquiet with the management's decision to defy the
law.

Although The Daily News became an "illegal" newspaper on 1 January
2003, it was only shut down in September 2003 after the Supreme Court ruled
the paper was illegally publishing. The Supreme Court said The Daily News
had gone to court with "dirty hands", having defied a law which media groups
say is repressive.

However, correspondence exchanged from January to
September, 2003, between executives, directors and shareholders of ANZ
reveals some fatalistic legal advice given to senior managers and an
arrogant defiance in areas, which gifted the government with an opportunity
to shut down The Daily News.

In an unpublished e-mail, Judith Todd, a
former director at ANZ, expresses the view that ANZ chairman Samuel Sipepa
Nkomo and former Zimpapers chief executive Matthews Kunaka, drafted in as a
director, had a death wish for the company.

In one e-mail, dated
January 6, 2003, addressed to Norman Nyazema, the chairman of Masiyiwa's
Independent Media Group (IMG), Todd blasted: "The Daily News is one of the
few lifelines to sanity we have left. I do not want to be complicit in
allowing it to be destroyed."

Todd further reveals growing intolerance to
dissent within the management, likening it to Zanu PF. She said: "'The
ruling party' and 'the majority shareholders' have a distinctly similar ring
and a totally identical purpose: simply to shut out any dissenting views. I
do not understand how Sam Nkomo has been able to accrue and wield such
power, such destructive power as it turns out, without the knowledge let
alone consent of the Board."

Just before Nkomo's appointment, Nyarota
had commissioned a series of stories linking him to corruption at the Mining
and Industry Pension Fund (MIPF). He had been forced to resign but the case
was dropped before plea after his co-accused Trevor Carelse-Juu skipped the
country ahead of a police probe.

Stuart Mattinson, one of the ANZ
directors who backed the company's decision not to register was tackled by
Masiyiwa in September 2003 after the paper's legal challenge collapsed. He
insisted that the government would have closed the paper down
anyway.

However, he revealed there was internal strife among top
managers, and that there was poor or no legal advice at all to help them in
dealing with the crisis at the company.

Said Mattinson: "I am most
concerned that we appear to have been caught unawares and our response has
not been fully considered, indeed it seems that we have left our executive
team to decide on strategy, determine a legal position and tactics and at
the same time deal with the illegal and thuggish tactics of those who would
like to see us permanently closed."

However, Mattinson was unrepentant
over the botched court challenge, or the legal faux pas, saying: "Our
principled stand is not the cause of our closure, it simply gave our enemies
an opportunity to attack us, had this course of action not been available to
them, then I have absolutely no doubt that they would have engineered some
other 'quasi legal' ruse to close us down."

The latest revelations
will add succour to Nyarota's claims that internal bungling, possibly
deliberate, had led to The Daily News' closure. The publisher of the
Zimbabwe Independent and the Standard, Trevor Ncube, has also voiced similar
concerns.

Said Ncube: "I believe that this could all have been avoided
had Nkomo agreed to join (then Financial Gazette proprietor Elias) Rusike
and myself in our decision to register our newspapers and then launch a
constitutional challenge against this Act."

According to Nyarota, ANZ
management "gambled on a matter of principle and relied solely on a suicidal
battle against a regime notorious for its determination not to uphold the
rule of law."

Former Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, who was one of
the drafters of AIPPA claimed in an interview on Afro Sounds FM last
Thursday that The Daily News would be in operation if its managers had
registered it.

"Without a doubt, the paper would be selling on the
streets," Moyo said to questions on the Zimbabwe Today programme. "The Daily
News managers had enough time from May 2002 to launch an appeal with the
courts before the December deadline but they chose defiance. Even when they
were operating illegally from January 2003, we did not close them down and
waited for the courts to decide on their fate and that decision came in
September 2003."

Moyo, now an Independent MP for Tsholotsho, however
insists that the Media and Information Commission is now abusing its
position by refusing to grant The Daily News a licence.

Nkomo insists
that Nyarota is bitter, and that he was fired because he was running the
company's finances down. He says no positive or negative action on ANZ's
part would have stopped the government from shutting the paper down.

TO SERVE THE NATIONAL CITY AND THROUGH IT THE NATION
Little hope for the poor of ZimbabweMonday, 1 August 2005

WITH
one or two exceptions, the political and economic development of
post-colonial Africa makes for bleak reading. And none makes for a more
pessimistic study than Zimbabwe, strait-jacketed by the tyrannical rule of
Robert Mugabe and gripped by economic chaos and widespread human
suffering.Corrupt and authoritarian rule is not just peculiar to Africa, of
course, but the continent has become a byword for despotism, exacerbated, it
has to be said, by 19th- and 20th-century European colonisers whose primary
aims were economic enrichment and geo-political advantage. They drew borders
without regard to ethnic considerations, played tribes off against each
other to entrench their rule, and didn't resile from employing force and
superior military technology to put down any threat or opposition to their
rule. There can be little surprise that many African nations have had
difficulty overcoming this largely toxic colonial inheritance, or the
inherently anti-democratic traditions of tribal rule. The often sorry
history of modern Africa is replete with the political king figure, or "big
man" of some promise who invariably goes on to demonstrate Lord Acton's
dictum that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely".

Unlike colonisers elsewhere in Africa, the British left a
relatively generous legacy to Zimbabwe, but the road to independence was
complicated by the renegade rule of Ian Smith, who'd issued a unilateral
declaration of independence in 1965 in a bid to head off black majority
rule. The bitter civil war that came later was waged by guerrilla forces,
that, ominously, were divided on tribal lines. However, when Mugabe came to
power after elections in 1980 in a coalition with fellow guerrilla leader
Joshua Nkomo, the auguries appeared bright. In a spirit of reconciliation,
the sizeable (and substantially native-born) white minority was encouraged
to stay on to continue running farms and businesses. Mugabe, the avowed
Marxist revolutionary who'd declared that the new nation would be
non-aligned, was lionised by fellow African leaders and others engaged in
their own independence struggles both in Africa and elsewhere. Surprisingly
this goodwill has endured, and Mugabe has exploited it ruthlessly
.

Despite the optimism, it took little time for tribal rivalries to
emerge in the new Zimbabwe. In 1982, Joshua Nkomo was expelled from the
cabinet after accusations that he was plotting a coup. Handily for Mugabe,
the state of emergency first declared before Smith's UDI had been kept in
place, and this was now exploited to quell dissension among the Ndebele
followers of Nkomo. Mugabe set about amending the constitution, making
changes that saw him become head of state in 1988. Other changes followed,
further consolidating his Shona-dominated Zanu-PF party's grip on power and
emasculating its political opponents.

For 25 years Mugabe has
displayed rat cunning in maintaining his ruthless hold on power - by turns
pious, populist, and defiant. He's played the race card frequently and
without hesitation, scapegoated minorities without compunction, thumbed his
nose at international critics and shrugged off economic sanctions - though
at substantial cost to ordinary Zimbabweans. So successful has he been in
quelling internal opposition and side-lining potential political rivals
within his own party that even trips abroad - the traditional time for
overthrowing unpopular African leaders - hold no fears, as he's demonstrated
with his current visit to Beijing.

Earlier this month Zimbabwe police
resumed a slum-demolition campaign in the country's main cities dubbed
"Operation Drive Out Trash". Mugabe claims the program is an urban clean-up
campaign. In reality, the demolitions are to punish those people who voted
for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change at the March elections. A
recent report on the slum demolitions by UN special envoy Anna Kajumulo
Tibaijuka has been called by Secretary-General Kofi Annan "profoundly
distressing". Characteristically, Mugabe has denounced the report as hostile
and biased.

There's no apparent logic behind the persecution of
Zimbabwe's poorest peasants, especially as the March election delivered
Zanu-PF almost total control of the Parliament and gave it carte blanche to
again alter the constitution. Now aged 81, Mugabe has also hinted that he
won't stand at the next presidential election in 2008. It would seem his
main reason for conducting the campaign is simply that he
can.

Mugabe's megalomania would be impossible without his fellow African
leaders, many of whom choose to ignore his egregious rule out of misguided
perceptions of African solidarity. Few could bring any pressure to bear
anyway, regardless of how much they might be embarrassed by Mugabe in
private. The one country that could, South Africa, is actually aiding and
abetting the regime while ostensibly encouraging contact between Zanu-PF and
the MDC. It continues to supply oil and electricity on credit to the
bankrupt nation, and has said it's prepared to pay off part of Zimbabwe's
large IMF debt to save it from expulsion. South African President Thabo
Mbeki's caution reflects not just the bonds between fellow revolutionaries
but also fears that overt interference could cause splits in his own ruling
coalition, and the belief, at best naive, that the kind of conflict
resolution that transformed South Africa can be replicated in
Zimbabwe.

Mugabe has another significant benefactor in China, which is
pumping millions into the economy with an eye to securing some of the
country's mineral wealth. Such comfort and aid highlights just how limited
are the options left for the international community to bring Mugabe into
line. Neither censure nor sanctions have worked. George W. Bush's hope that
President Mbeki might be "point man" on Zimbabwe was wishful thinking. To
increase international support for the pro-democracy movement in Zimbabwe is
to risk further victimisation campaigns.

Strategic engagement with
multilateral bodies such as the African Union probably represent the best
hope. But given there are no strategic imperatives for increased Western
involvement in Zimbabwe, what would happen is precisely nothing. Tragically
for the Zimbabwean people, the only things likely to deliver them from
Mugabe are a humanitarian disaster too big for the West to ignore, or the
death of the president himself.

Business ReporterZimbabwe investors are working in partnership
with a Bangladeshi firm to construct a multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical
company, which will save the country millions in foreign currency currently
spent on importing drugs.

In the long run, the establishment of the
company would also help the country earn foreign currency from the export of
pharmaceutical products to the Southern African Development Community (Sadc)
and other international markets.

Bilateral agreements between
Zimbabwe and the Asian country had already been signed while funding
mechanisms were being vigorously pursued.

It is envisaged that the joint
venture project would take advantage of the abundant resources on the
continent to produce medicines for Africa as well as the world at
large.

The Ministry of Trade and International Trade and the Bangladesh
authorities are spearheading the project, which is expected to gobble up
billions of dollars in both foreign and local currency in its initial
phases.

Technical experts are also expected to be recruited to ensure the
project becomes a reality.

The establishment of the company is line
with the Government's import substitution strategy aimed at conserving
scarce foreign currency resources.

The country has been spending large
sums of foreign currency to import medicines despite immense potential to
add value to its vast stocks of medicinal plants.

Meanwhile, the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) Multi-Disciplinary
Technical Working Group on the Pharmaceutical Sector has met to discuss ways
of implementing the pharmaceutical harmonisation process.

The meeting
was attended by delegates from National Drug Regulatory Authorities (NDRAs)
and the private sector from Egypt, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Uganda,
Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe as well as representatives
of the East African Community.

The delegates constituted a technical
working group on the pharmaceutical sector, which will meet at least once a
year to oversee the implementation of the pharmaceutical harmonisation
process, including the establishment of the Mutual Recognition Arrangements
for registration of medicines and inspection of manufacturing facilities in
the trading bloc.

It will also oversee the preparation of a business plan
for the establishment of a permanent regional regulatory authority with due
cognisance of the operations of NDRAs.

A steering committee of four
member states, namely Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, was appointed to
continue the work programme of preparing NDRAs towards the next steps in the
harmonisation process.

It was found that pharmaceuticals worth billions
of United States dollars are imported by Comesa member states every year,
despite the existence of a vibrant pharmaceutical manufacturing sector in
the region.

The measures being put in place to facilitate trade in
pharmaceutical products will contribute significantly to growing trade in
pharmaceutical products in the region, within the framework of the Comesa
Free Trade Area.

Forced return to Zimbabwe From Mr Alistair Burt, MP for
Bedfordshire North East(Conservative) and others

Sir, On August 4 Mr Justice Collins will resume a judicial review hearing,
in which he is taking evidence on the safety of returning to Zimbabwe those
whose asylum applications have not been successful in this
country. We do not believe he should be in this position. We
remain concerned and disappointed that, in the face of all the evidence from
Zimbabwe, the British Government persists in forced removals to that
country.

As evidence mounts of the risk to those
returning who have sought refuge in this country, with our long tradition of
providing a safe haven for those fleeing from persecution, and as the UNHCR
restates its view that it is not safe for any nation to have such a policy,
we call upon the British Government to spare itself the embarrassment of
having the High Court take a decision which should be its own, and announce
an immediate resumption of a moratorium on enforced
removals.

WILL John Bolton, the next US ambassador to the United
Nations, and Robert Mugabe, the long-standing tyrant of Zimbabwe, do for
global governance what Enron's Ken Lay and WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers did for
corporate governance?It took high-profile scandals at Enron and WorldCom to
shock public opinion and politicians out of their complacency with the
abusive practices of corporate chieftains. New laws and a heightened public
awareness have created a corporate environment where the abuses and the
impunity common in the past are less tolerated.

Lay and Ebbers are
now symbols of greed, and their conduct sparked major reforms in the way
private corporations are governed. Will Bolton's and Mugabe's roles in the
United Nations mobilise the needed political energy to change the way it and
other international organisations function?

Bolton once famously noted
that, in his opinion, "There is no such thing as the United Nations," and
that "if the UN secretariat building in New York lost 10 storeys, it
wouldn't make a bit of difference."

During his Senate confirmation
hearings, a former colleague testified to Bolton's being a "serial abuser"
of subordinates who disagreed with him. They painted an image of an
ambassador who was more bully than diplomat. Now Bolton is being sent to New
York to reform the very institution whose existence and utility he so
frequently and stridently questioned.

As observers were digesting the
paradox of having Bolton as the US envoy to the United Nations, the world
body announced a more routine but no less incredible decision: Zimbabwe was
re-elected as a full member of the UN Human Rights Commission. Yes,
Zimbabwe, the poor nation ruled by the dictator Robert Mugabe, one of the
world's worst human rights offenders. It may sound crazy to have a regime
that intimidates its political opposition through violence and starvation
sit in judgment of other states' human rights records. But it is not as
crazy as who is responsible for Zimbabwe's re-election. The answer:
No-one.

Sure, there was an official election and a formal session in New
York on April 27 in which countries cast their votes. But, in practice,
these procedures are designed to mask any responsibility for the decisions
the organisation takes.

The governing body of the Human Rights
Commission is the UN Economic and Social Council. EcoSoc, as this group of
54 nations is called, is in turn divided into regional groups, and each of
these blocs is automatically entitled to a certain number of seats on the
Human Rights Commission.

This year, the 14 African members put forward
three newcomers, Botswana, Cameroon, and Morocco, as candidates for
membership and proposed that Zimbabwe be re-elected. Thus, 14 African
ambassadors to the United Nations - or in some cases their EcoSoc
representatives - "voted", and the new and re-elected member nations were
selected to serve three-year terms on the Human Rights Commission.

In
the same way, Cuba, another human rights exemplar, was re-elected in 2003 by
Latin American and Caribbean countries, and Asian states have re-elected
China every three years since 1982. According to Freedom House, 30 per cent
of the countries now on the Human Rights Commission are themselves serial
human-rights violators.

If such levels of hypocrisy are considered
acceptable, indeed normal, in UN circles today, one is tempted to conclude
that Bolton and the United Nations deserve each other. In despair, one is
also tempted to just forget about the United Nations and the sad and
expensive charade played in Geneva each year by the more than 3000 delegates
who attend the sessions of the Human Rights Commission. But to do so would
be wrong.

Wrong because, despite the United Nations' dysfunction, the
world's dependence on such bodies is growing, not shrinking.

We need
them despite the fact that they are slow, inefficient, often ineffective, a
bit ridiculous, and sometimes corrupt. No country acting alone will make a
dent in the well-known and rapidly expanding list of problems - air
pollution, human trafficking, nuclear proliferation, to name a few - whose
nature is as global as their solutions should be.

And in a strange
alchemy, the foul odours of corruption, waste, and ineptitude that pervade
the United Nations may be transmuting into, if not strong winds of change,
at least a breeze of reform. The debate over the war in Iraq, the
oil-for-food scandal, and the high-profile missteps of several senior UN
officials (including accusations of nepotism, sexual harassment, and graft)
have all created a mood where change may be possible.

Kofi Annan, the
embattled UN secretary-general, has proposed reforms that seek to change
many things at the world body, including its shameful Human Rights
Commission.

This spring, UN members will consider his proposed reforms,
offering a good test case of the world's desire for a better United Nations.
But optimism must be tempered with scepticism. World leaders have grown
accustomed to coexisting with a weak and malfunctioning United Nations.
Reform of the organisation will not take place as a result of the efforts of
any single individual - not those of an infuriatingly diplomatic
secretary-general nor those of a vociferous and bullying US
ambassador.

Change will come only when governments and their publics -
that is, you and I - realise that their future is, in part, dependent on how
well the United Nations works.

If the reputations of Bolton and
Mugabe help raise that awareness, then they may be the two best things ever
to happen to the United Nations.

The South African government looks set to
bail Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe out of the fairly deep hole he has
dug for himself - and more than 13 million of his fellow
citizens.

There will, as in all foreign-funded bailouts, be strings
attached. As a South African taxpayer, I think this is entirely appropriate
- if we are to make the choice to spend money on other countries' problems
rather than our own, then we must ensure that our foreign policy priorities
are met.

Despite this reality, the rhetoric coming out of Harare is that
despite Zimbabwe facing its worst crisis in 25 years - with unemployment
above 70 percent, inflation in triple digits and acute shortages of foreign
currency, food and fuel - Mugabe will not accept conditions attached to any
loan - even if these conditions are as fundamental to basic human rights as
halting the demolition of shanty towns, restoring the rule of law and
resuming political talks aimed at normalising the situation.

The loan
will, if attached to suitable conditions, spell the end of the failed policy
of quiet diplomacy and will do wonders for South Africa's international
reputation and, accordingly, its chances of making one of the UN security
council seats its own.

Closer to home, the machinery of the economy -
which has made it possible for South Africa to give foreign aid - will
continue working.

On the economic front, Statistics SA will release
consumer inflation data on Wednesday. If CPIX, which excludes mortgage
interest and is the measure used to determine monetary policy and interest
rates, comes in lower than expected, further rate cuts could be on the
cards.

Producer inflation data will be released on Thursday, with private
sector credit growth, money supply and trade data all set to be released on
Friday.

On the markets, short-term insurer Mutual & Federal (M&F)
and Anglo American Platinum (Angloplat) will kick off the reporting
season.

Resource stocks are going to become the flavour of the month
again following a long time in the doldrums in the wake of the rand's
strength.

Earlier this month M&F, which is controlled by insurance
giant Old Mutual, said half-year basic and headline earnings a share would
be up by as much as 80 percent from the year before.

Angloplat, which
is majority owned by resources behemoth Anglo American, has said it expects
profits to jump by up to 35 percent.

Other companies reporting results
this week include diamond producer De Beers, paper maker Sappi, which puts
out third-quarter production data, and MTN, which releases its latest
subscriber numbers.

Analysts say De Beers will probably have grown
half-year sales 11 percent to $3.31 billion (R21.9 billion) on the back of
higher prices and ramped-up production.

De Beers, which controls over
half the world's diamond supply, is 45 percent owned by mining conglomerate
Anglo American and 45 percent by the Oppenheimer family. The government of
Botswana owns the balance.

What will be of great interest will be how De
Beers sees the impact of China's revaluation of its currency last
week.

This could boost demand in that fast-growing economy as it could,
theoretically at least, make commodity imports cheaper for Chinese
buyers.

We will also look for details on the company's long-awaited black
economic empowerment deal.

MDC deputy secretary general Gift
Chimanikire, arrested last Thursday following skirmishes in Mbare as Vice-
President Joseph Msika officially opened the Mbare Musika vegetable market,
was released on Saturday by the Harare magistrates' court on $500 000
bail.Chimanikire, who was arrested together with three other MDC youths, is
facing allegations of contravening the Firearms Act after he was reportedly
found in possession of a shotgun without a licence.According to his
lawyer Alec Muchadehama: "Initially he was facing public violence charges
but in court the State charged him with breaching the firearms act
only."The MDC youths who were with Chimanikire when the alleged violence
occurred, namely Edmore Manyota, Prosper Dongo and Stephen Mutsipa, were
also freed on $700 000 bail each.The trio stand accused of contravening
provisions of the Public Order and Security Act (Posa).The State further
claims that the accused proceeded to threaten Zanu PF youths with pistols,
resulting in the chaos after which they allegedly jumped into Chimanikire's
vehicle and fled. "The state is alleging that they were arrested when they
sought refuge at Mbare Police Station where they were seeking to make a
counter report of assault," Muchadehama said.As part of their bail
conditions, the accused were ordered to report to the Criminal Investigation
Department (CID) every Friday and not to interfere with State witnesses.

THE Master of the
High Court, Charles Nyatanga, has been sucked in the controversial sale of
two factories belonging to former businessman Bobby Maparanyanga in a court
case (No. HC 3168/054). The incident allegedly occurred more than a decade
ago.

In his founding affidavit, Maparanyanga is bitter over the manner in
which the sheriff of the High Court auctioned the property, saying the
proceeds were meant to clear a debt Maparanyanga had with
Zimbank. Maparanyanga claims that in October 1993, Zimbank obtained an order
against Handiwork and Associated Industries (Pvt) Ltd - which ruled that he
pays the bank (plaintiff in the matter) $552 028,30 with interest at the
rate of 44 percent per annum to settle the debt."Using that judgment,
Zimbank caused the immovable property Lot 1 of Willowvale Harare . to be
attached in execution by the deputy sheriff and the legitimate sale in
execution of the attached property was to take place on December 16 1995 at
10 am," Maparanyanga claimed.He further claimed that on December 15 1994,
Zimbank instructed its legal practitioner (case HC 5904/93) to stop and
cancel the sale in execution and in turn legal practitioners Gill, Godlonton
and Gerrans (G G G) instructed the sheriff to cancel the sale in execution
of the said property.A copy of the letter from G G G Legal Practitioners to
the High Court Sheriff dated December 16 1994 read: "We refer to the Sale in
Execution of the immovable property belonging to the defendant . being Lot 1
of Willowvale which is due to take place at 10 am. We act on behalf of the
plaintiff (Zimbank) who has advised us that arrangements have been made with
the defendant for payment of the judgment debt."They have requested us
to instruct you not to proceed with the Sale in Execution. We apologise for
the short notice of cancellation and look forward to receiving your
statement of account."Maparanyanga argues the Sheriff did not stop the sale
in execution, despite being instructed to cancel it by the
creditor."Whoever wanted to participate in the proceeds of the sale in
execution could then not do so since the creditor, Zimbank, had cancelled
the sale in execution of the property," he said. For reasons not in line
with the purpose of the sale in execution or for the purpose of it, the
sheriff allegedly ignored Zimbank's instruction and proceeded to sell the
property, Maparanyanga said. "The sheriff, however, despite being
instructed before the auction to cancel the sale in execution did not cancel
the sale in execution. The illegal thing happened. The sale in execution
went ahead, despite instructions to cancel it by the creditor (Zimbank) who
had initially instructed the sheriff to sell the property in execution,"
lamented Maparanyanga.Ashtec (Pvt) Ltd was declared the highest bidder,
Maparanyanga said. However, he adds that the deputy sheriff claimed that
the property had fetched a very low price, which meant that the sheriff
could not proceed with the distribution of the proceeds of the sale in
execution but to revert to the creditor for new
instructions.Alternatives available were either to re-advertise and re-sell
in execution or let the property be sold by private treaty.Maparanyanga
said the public sale in execution of the property fetched $750 000 plus 10
percent deposit ($75 000) making a total of $825 000."The sheriff did not
obtain a new mandate or new authority or new instructions from the creditor
(Zimbank) .obviously because the sheriff had already been instructed to
cancel the sale in execution of the property," Maparanyanga said.He
adds: "The Applicant has since learned from G G G Legal Practitioners that
when they wrote to the sheriff asking why the sheriff had not cancelled the
sale in execution as instructed, the sheriff did not reply."The legal
practitioners are said to have later phoned the sheriff who advised them
that there had been another writ of execution of Stanbic in respect of a
judgment against the applicant in favour of the bank, which wanted to
participate in the proceeds of the sale. "What is most perturbing and mind
boggling is that a fictitious distribution plan was drawn up by the
sheriff," Maparanyanga charged.Anomalies Maparanyanga noted in the
distribution included the fact that it reflected proceeds of the sale in
execution as $900 000 which, he said, was not true.Further, Stanbic,
which had caused the sheriff to fail to stay the execution, is not included
in the distribution plan while G G G is included."The creditor (Zimbank),
despite G G G being included in this fictitious distribution plan, was not
paid any money from the so-called proceeds of the sale of execution," noted
Maparanyanga.He added: "The first respondent (Zimbank) was paid the judgment
debtor by (Mr) Bobby Maparanyanga."Maparanyanga further argues that
though Ashtec was declared the highest bidder, the property was never
transferred into its name."The property was transferred into the name of one
who never attended the sale nor bought the property at the public auction
sale in execution," he said, adding "to this day Ashtec (Pvt) Ltd never
owned the property it is said to have bought at the public auction sale
aforesaid and declared the highest bidder."Maparanyanga claims Ashtec
(Pvt) Ltd ended at the distribution plan drawn on May 02 1995 and has never
been heard of again. "For reasons legally inexplicable and incomprehensible,
the property which was sold at a public auction sale in execution was
transferred from Harare Car Breakers Sales and Repairs in whose name it (the
property) was, to one Charles Nyatanga who did not attend the public auction
sale, one who did not buy the property at the public auction sale or by
private treaty, one who was not even declared the highest bidder, a clear
man from the blues who gave himself authority to transfer the property into
his name - one wonders what his interests are and why it was done that way
and with whose authority," Maparanyanga said.He claimed the property was
later transferred from Charles Nyatanga to Ashman (Pvt) Ltd. "But today
the property aforesaid in this litigation is registered in Ashman Pvt Ltd.
One wonders why," Maparanyanga asked in his affidavit.He adds: "The bonds
that were registered on the Deed of Transfer and the Caveats that were
placed on the Deed of Transfer were cancelled and uplifted respectively
without the authority of bond holders and those who had placed the Caveats
on the Deed of Transfer."The bond holders and those who had placed the
Caveats on the Deed of Transfer were later paid by Bobby Maparanyanga at a
very later year and later date."In the High Court Maparanyanga is
seeking an order that the Deed of Transfer registered in the name of Ashman
(Pvt) Ltd on February 17 1995 be cancelled and that the Deed of Transfer
listed in the name of the second applicant, Harare Car Breakers Sales and
Repairs, reinstated.Several efforts to get comment from Nyatanga proved
fruitless yesterday.

Is there another country in the world called Zimbabwe? I only ask because
the Zimbabwe that is described by the ANC seems to be a different country to
that which I thought was located to the north of South Africa and has a mad
dictator in charge, called Robert Mugabe.

On Friday July 29,
President Thabo Mbeki said: "It was wrong to suggest that Zimbabwe's land
reform programme was marred by corruption" ("Harare stalled land reforms 'to
help SA freedom talks'.") I'm sorry, Mr President, but isn't the allocation
of farms, in many cases more than one, personally to Mugabe, his
family,

friends, senior military officers and government ministers
a corrupt process?

In the same issue, Finance Minister Trevor
Manuel states "the worst thing we can have is a failed state or a rogue
state on our borders". You can see my confusion, because I thought Zimbabwe
was a failed state, and a rogue state, and is on South Africa's
border. Steve Cattell Constantia Hills

Right after independence,
in 1975, a great sense of African solidarity ran across the Angolan society,
regardless of the realpolitik of the time. “Our struggle continues in Zimbabwe,
Namibia and South Africa”, highlighted a propaganda slogan.

Nowadays, South Africa and
Namibia have built solid grounds for freedom, peace and stability through
reconciliation, democracy and political commonsense, in the past 15 years. While
Angola is battling its way up, from the shambles of war and misrule, the other
Southern Africa country, Zimbabwe, is on its way down. This country had made
great human progress, in 20 years of independence.

At some point, I decided
to visit Zimbabwe to learn how that once-lighthouse for Africa’s human
development and stability had gone so wrong. Civil society player A. Nongongo
gave me the most compelling explanation on why such a well-educated people had
failed to prevent the country’s derailment. He said Zimbabweans were driven to
have the best education possible and to strive as individuals, but were not
taught to be citizens. The belief of the people was that the State was to
protect and provide them with a sort of paternal guidance. But, in reality,
there was a fine line between the role of the State and that of
ZANU-PF.

The ill resolved land
redistribution and the not much love between black and white communities, had
been idling for almost 20 years. At a crucial time, these were fanned to flame.
They were politically re-mastered by ZANU-PF leadership to reassert its control
of power. It made the landless, the poor, the veterans and the opportunists
believe that the day had come for them to share the spoils. But, as in Angola,
only a few have benefited from chaos. When it happened, according to A.
Nongongo, the critical mass was somewhat at a loss.

The ensuing political
battles have been a defeat to Zimbabwe’s people and its achievements. Today,
thousands of Zimbabweans are damned to die of starvation. Most of the people
have to live in a state of permanent fear.

The twist of
democracy

Zimbabwe has become a
landmark case on how an electoral process can be used to further plunge the
country into darkness and how it is used to twist a democratic system back into
a de facto tyranny.

Angola and Zimbabwe,
though in different circumstances, share a common trend. At crucial moments,
both civil societies put much emphasis on the hope that the international
community and elections would or could help resolve the situation, and not on
internal pressure.

In Angola it happened,
once again, in 2002, after the death of then rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, with
the expectation placed on the outcomes of talks between the contenders and the
role played by the UN and international observers.

As for Zimbabwe, the faith
was placed on the international community’s sanctions after the 2002
presidential elections, widely condemned as rigged. The highly flawed and
questionable2005
parliamentarian elections further strengthened Mugabe’s regime grip on power, as
his party ZANU-PF was awarded a two-thirds majority.

Thus, people have lost the
belief in their own ability and courage to change the situation of the country
to best serve people’s needs.

Like Angola, Zimbabwe’s
civil society is overwhelmingly dependent on the goodwill or strategic
conveniences of foreign donors. In Angola, such reliance happens in a country
with abundant natural resources, which renders its power holders the most
effective means in corrupting and squandering of resources.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s regime
has sought legitimacy, through an internally combined use of a resounding
black-nationalist rhetoric, violence and unjust laws. This did not cost him, it
helped him. He added the diplomatic support from African countries and, more
recently, mass demolitions of neighborhoods suspected of being strongholds of
opposition supporters.

Had Mugabe plenty of
natural resources (oil) to offer, he would have mastered the support or the
silence of the West as well as Dos Santos, from Angola, and Nguema from
Equatorial Guinea.

In both circumstances, the
international support has not been helpful to changes neither in Angola, where
the government uses and abuses it, nor in Zimbabwe where the civil society and
the opposition had received it plenty. Or else, one can say what a mixed
blessing!

Such a fact is a lesson on
how fundamental is internal pressure, regardless of factors of fear or
fragmentation, and how fickle international support can
be.

The shield of fear

In both countries fear of
repression has been highlighted as one of the main hindrances for people to push
for changes.

Let us, for the moment,
exclude fear from violence as an argument to justify people’s passivity to demand accountability
from and the halting of power abuse by government. One has to bear in mind that
usually violence is executed by the foot soldiers, the masses
themselves.

During the liberation
struggle for independence, and until very recently, in countries like DRC and
Angola, to name two that I am most familiar with, scores of fighters would run
against bullets - chests out - because they believed witchcraft had bullet
proofed them. Che-Guevara learnt about the belief in dawa during his
expeditionary mission to Congo[1].

This is to explain that
the matter of fear has to do more with the challenges of the unknown, rather
than with its imposition by or might of the aggressors or rulers. Fear is a
perception, after all, which can easily be overrun by a strong and common
belief.

It is up to those claiming
to be alternative leaders to transform the fear of the unknown into an
attainable will for change and better days ahead. It is initially about courage,
mobilization and wisdom against political banditry, disguised in the form of
rule.

A successful
story

South Africa has been
registering a very successful reconciliation and democratic process, because
people fought for it and with their lives when it was necessary. The
resoluteness of people in the townships like Soweto, in standing up defenseless
against an all mighty and ruthless apartheid regime, greatly inspired ordinary
people around the world to espouse their cause.

Those who most suffered,
like Mandela, were the most engaged in promoting the truth and forgiveness but,
above all, the restoration of South African black dignity.

The images of blacks being
chased in Soweto have been replaced by those of a fast developing country, of
Mandela’s world statesmanship, Charlize Theron’s Oscar and the hosting of 2010
Soccer World Cup. After all, it has become a country with pride for all its
citizens.

It makes only sense for us
to continue to fight for our freedom and to learn from one another’s
experiences, strengths and weaknesses. We have to share regional solidarity,
this time not by way of political leaders’ engagements, but united by the common
suffering of ordinary people and against misrule. As, from Angola to Zimbabwe, a
luta continua[2].

As John Kerry has
remarked, the “future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom[3].